Religious Discrimination in Delaware
Posted by Tamara
Since 9/11, courts have been dealing with cases involving religious discrimination against Muslims in the workplace.
Employers in Delaware and elsewhere are well advised to remember that courts have ruled that management is required by law to make “reasonable accommodations” to workers’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Those accommodations may include exceptions to a company’s dress code, work schedule, and uniforms, among other things.
The courts are working from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII declares it illegal to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of religion, country of origin, race, color, or gender.
The law applies to “sincerely held” religious beliefs. In other words, an employee cannot pretend to be Christian at Christmas and Jewish during Rosh Hashanah in order to get extra holiday time off and expect to receive the protection of the law. A sincerely held religious belief usually requires some sign, such as attending religious services or participating in the religion’s activities in some other way. Posing just to obtain concessions from an employer will not gain court support.
Two examples illustrate how alterations of the dress code could be reasonable accommodation.
A Muslim woman working for Alamo car rental in Phoenix, AZ, was fired for refusing to remove her head scarf on the job. She challenged the firing and the court awarded her more than $250,000, ruling that a change in company policy to allow her to wear the scarf would have been a “reasonable accommodation.” She argued that before 9/11 she had worn the scarf without objection from the management, and had received her supervisor’s approval to do so.
In another case, two Muslim men were working for county government in Pennsylvania. The county’s dress code demanded that all men must be clean-shaven. The men refused to shave their beards, and the county disciplined them. The court ruled that making exceptions to the dress code would have been a “reasonable accommodation” under Title VII. The judge noted that if the men’s beards posed a health hazard to themselves or to other employees, then the county would have been within its rights.
Last 10 posts by Tamara
- Georgia Vacation and Final Wages - February 5th, 2010
- Arizona Paternity Leave - February 4th, 2010
- Alabama Vacation Law - February 3rd, 2010
- Florida Small Business FMLA Maternity Leave - February 2nd, 2010
- Indiana Exempt Employee Comp Time - February 1st, 2010
- Minnesota Travel Time - January 29th, 2010
- Illinois Mini-COBRA Law - January 28th, 2010
- Wyoming Hostile Work Environment - January 27th, 2010
- Alaska Sexual Harassment - January 26th, 2010
- Texas Lunch Law - January 25th, 2010